Forum Post: Minor Mortgage Annoyance
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 12:28 a.m. EST by slinkeey
(244)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Hello,
I have a problem with an aspect of Bailing out people in foreclosure or that have homes worth less than they Owe.
Here it is. What about the the people that bought smaller homes within or under their means? Why should some get to buy a McMansion and then get help from the government. If they bought the smaller less expensive home, they would not be in the same situation.
I for one bought a home on the smaller side as a starter home knowing that I don't need tons of room. I actually kind of like the security of having a smaller house payment. If gives me a little sense of security if I lost my job.
If you can afford a large house then that is great, but if you can't, then why don't you buy a smaller house instead of expecting the government to come bail you out.
Is this really fair to people that made the kind of choice that I did?
No, it's not fair. Bailing people out is a liberal policy, combating mortgage policies put in place by liberals.
I too purchase a smaller home several years ago, within my means. Now, there are "bailouts" near me who own much larger homes, yet they owe less.
I am seriously considering withholding payment on my mortgage, so I can try to work a deal with my mortgage company. Unfortunately, mortgage companies will not talk about any "deals" until you are late on your payment.
See, liberals simply do not understand the results of their actions. Their policies create theives.
The Best documentary series I have seen on the financial crisis ... a comprehensive and engaging overview that solidifies the purpose, and spirit of 'Occupy Wall Street.' It is a 4 part series, and ALL of it is worth watching. 'Meltdown' takes a closer look at the people who brought down the financial world. http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/meltdown/2011/09/2011914105518615434.html
It is not about bad choices. The bankers took and are still taking advantage of us. We need to separate Wall Street from Main Street like we did after the Great Depression in the 1930's and repeal Graham Leavey Act. This country enjoyed years of prosperity when investment banking was separate from community banking. We need to tell Congress that this is what we want, bring back our community bankers.
It is not about bad choices. The bankers took and are still taking advantage of us. We need to separate Wall Street from Main Street like we did after the Great Depression in the 1930's and repeal Graham Leavey Act. This country enjoyed years of prosperity when investment banking was separate from community banking. We need to tell Congress that this is what we want, bring back our community bankers.
It is a bad choice when X bought a small house and Y bought a larger house that the government is keeping propped up.
X should have bought a larger house if he knew that uncle Sam would come to the rescue.
Who made the bad choice X or Y.
I say Y. OWS says X.
The idea of the banks recovering the loss thru selling the property is, at this time, ludicrous
Idea: Banks should be required to ' Suspend' payments and interest accumulation if a person loses their job during an 'economic downturn' until that person finds a comparable paying job or until the national unemployment rate is less than 5%.
We need to elect a new government in 2012. If I was elected I would confiscate all foreclosed homes from all the banks and allow homeless families to move in immediately.
http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/ read more
BP $20 BILLION oil spill fund
The fund set up for victims of BP Plc’s oil spill has paid $5.5 billion to more than 213,000 claimants in every U.S. state and 38 nations, according to Kenneth Feinberg, who runs the compensation program. The Gulf Coast Claims Facility receives about 2,270 submissions a week, Feinberg said today in testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee. The fund is “achieving its objective” and the number of new applicants is “proof positive that we are doing something right,” Feinberg said. The totals are current as of Oct. 21.
Representative Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican and chairman of the panel, said there has been a “large hole” in oversight and accountability of the claims facility, which started writing checks in 2010. State officials and residents along the Gulf of Mexico have called the fund inefficient and the payments too low. BP set aside $20 billion for the fund last year and named Feinberg as manager after negotiations with the Obama administration over damages to homes and businesses from the April 2010 spill, which spewed crude into the Gulf for 87 days.
That was the report by Bloomberg here is what Bloomberg forgot to report. The hearing revealed that $20 billion is a floor not a ceiling but that was contradicted by on August 2013 if Feinberg who receives his own monthly compensation of $1,250,000 monthly doesn't disperse the $20 billion the remaining balance will be returned to BP. In addition to the oil BP purposely dumped toxic chemicals called dispersants to disperse the oil making tiny drops from globs so the oil can't be seen. Shrimpers are catching 40% less than normal now but that could be much less 5 or 10 years from now. The oil can't be seen and neither can the missing shrimp be seen.
That huge decrease in shrimp doesn't account for the reduction of shrimp feed for all the sea creatures that eat shrimp for their diet. The BP fund won't compensate starving sea inhabitants. Every BP statement proved untrue. The SCREWED AGAIN remedy would be to arrest all the BP executives who purposely tried to save money when they used 6 centralizers instead of 23 and confiscate the entire company the same as the DEA would confiscate all the cocaine, the cars, homes and assets they would sell from cocaine dealers. The USA would then sell all the BP stock to remedy all the victims of the 4,900,000 barrel spill.
Here comes the spam. I don't know about all of you, OWS or not, but I personally don't enjoy sifting through spam in order to have a discussion. I realize it is free speech so I am not sure what the solution would be for the spam issue.
Sorry, I thought you would be interested in what the media didn't report.
I expose big shots like BP. That's what I follow and write about so you will be informed.
Should the homeowner be able to have the payments suspended for decades? I can understand suspending it because at least it will eventually get paid back if the homeowner is honest.
if it takes decades to get the unemployment rate down then yes. but this will force the creation of jobs so shouldn't take that long
How will it force the creation of jobs. The banks are not going to just hire more banker to create jobs. An economy needs to be diverse.
no but they will begin to lend only to businesses that actually create jobs in order to lower the unemployment rate so they can get paid. this in turn will create jobs.
That is interesting thought.. I will give you that.. It's kind of like how the Worker at GM may have a computer made by Apple, and the Apple most likely has an employee that drives a GM. Really the circle can get quite large if you expand it out..
exactly
That is one way to think of it.
Now what if you have a president in office that is making it so that people don't want to start up businesses?
That is one way to think of it.
Now what if you have a president in office that is making it so that people don't want to start up businesses?
there are always people who want to start a business but they rarely pay a wage sufficient enough for a mortgage. and if they do they only hire a few. but what counts are the big business that will be forced to hire people in order to get loans required to stay in business they are who we have to control
Ok, now you are getting too wacky. I work for a small business that grew and hired more and more people at good wages.. I don't agree that small businesses are as evil as you make them out to be.
I don't mean they are doing anything evil. just that they are not enough help the economy. there are not enough jobs created that way. they could not hire 5000 people tomorrow in other words no matter how well they are doing
ok, sorry..
Are you like a sensible OWSer? You actually have some idea of how the economy works. I see that you realize that a Company like IBM not only benefits IBM employees, but also benefits their suppliers full circle.